diff mbox series

[2/6] iommu/qcom: Write TCR before TTBRs to fix ASID access behavior

Message ID 20220527212901.29268-3-konrad.dybcio@somainline.org
State New
Headers show
Series Fix and extend Qualcomm IOMMU support | expand

Commit Message

Konrad Dybcio May 27, 2022, 9:28 p.m. UTC
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>

As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
some fields.

Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
---
 drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Will Deacon May 31, 2022, 3:55 p.m. UTC | #1
On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:28:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
> 
> As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
> writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
> some fields.

Where is this stated in the arm-smmu driver?

> 
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
> ---
>  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> @@ -273,18 +273,18 @@ static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>  			ctx->secure_init = true;
>  		}
>  
> -		/* TTBRs */
> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
> -				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
> -				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
> -
>  		/* TCR */
>  		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
>  				arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
>  		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
>  			     arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
>  
> +		/* TTBRs */
> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
> +				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
> +				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);

I'd have thought that SCTLR.M would be clear here, so it shouldn't matter
what order we write these in.

Will
Robin Murphy May 31, 2022, 4:26 p.m. UTC | #2
On 2022-05-31 16:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:28:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>>
>> As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
>> writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
>> some fields.
> 
> Where is this stated in the arm-smmu driver?

In arm_smmu_write_context_bank() - IIRC it's mostly about the case where 
if you write a 16-bit ASID to TTBR before setting TCR2.AS you might end 
up losing the top 8 bits of it. However, in the context of a pantomime 
where we just have to pretend to program the "hardware" the way the 
firmware has already programmed it (on pain of getting randomly reset if 
we look at it wrong), I can't imagine it really matters.

Robin.

>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>> index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>> @@ -273,18 +273,18 @@ static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>>   			ctx->secure_init = true;
>>   		}
>>   
>> -		/* TTBRs */
>> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>> -				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>> -				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
>> -
>>   		/* TCR */
>>   		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
>>   				arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
>>   		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
>>   			     arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
>>   
>> +		/* TTBRs */
>> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>> +				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>> +				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
> 
> I'd have thought that SCTLR.M would be clear here, so it shouldn't matter
> what order we write these in.
> 
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> iommu mailing list
> iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
Marijn Suijten June 5, 2022, 10:06 p.m. UTC | #3
On 2022-05-31 16:55:59, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:28:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
> > 
> > As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
> > writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
> > some fields.
> 
> Where is this stated in the arm-smmu driver?
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> > index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
> > @@ -273,18 +273,18 @@ static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> >  			ctx->secure_init = true;
> >  		}
> >  
> > -		/* TTBRs */
> > -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
> > -				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
> > -				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
> > -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
> > -
> >  		/* TCR */
> >  		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
> >  				arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
> >  		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
> >  			     arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
> >  
> > +		/* TTBRs */
> > +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
> > +				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
> > +				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
> > +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
> 
> I'd have thought that SCTLR.M would be clear here, so it shouldn't matter
> what order we write these in.

Having tested the series without this particular patch on 8976 (Sony
Loire Suzu), it doesn't seem to matter indeed.  I'll ask around if this
"access behaviour" was observed on a different board/platform.

- Marijn
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno June 8, 2022, 10:27 a.m. UTC | #4
Il 06/06/22 00:06, Marijn Suijten ha scritto:
> On 2022-05-31 16:55:59, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:28:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>>>
>>> As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
>>> writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
>>> some fields.
>>
>> Where is this stated in the arm-smmu driver?
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>> index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>> @@ -273,18 +273,18 @@ static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>>>   			ctx->secure_init = true;
>>>   		}
>>>   
>>> -		/* TTBRs */
>>> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>>> -				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>>> -				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>>> -		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
>>> -
>>>   		/* TCR */
>>>   		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
>>>   				arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
>>>   		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
>>>   			     arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
>>>   
>>> +		/* TTBRs */
>>> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>>> +				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>>> +				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>>> +		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
>>
>> I'd have thought that SCTLR.M would be clear here, so it shouldn't matter
>> what order we write these in.
> 
> Having tested the series without this particular patch on 8976 (Sony
> Loire Suzu), it doesn't seem to matter indeed.  I'll ask around if this
> "access behaviour" was observed on a different board/platform.
> 
> - Marijn

On some platforms, the bootloader (and/or the hypervisor) is performing some
initialization of the IOMMU which, depending on the actual firmware version
that ran before booting Linux, may or may not leave SCTLR.M cleared.

Cheers,
Angelo
Robin Murphy June 8, 2022, 10:54 a.m. UTC | #5
On 2022-06-08 11:27, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 06/06/22 00:06, Marijn Suijten ha scritto:
>> On 2022-05-31 16:55:59, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:28:57PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
>>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>>>>
>>>> As also stated in the arm-smmu driver, we must write the TCR before
>>>> writing the TTBRs, since the TCR determines the access behavior of
>>>> some fields.
>>>
>>> Where is this stated in the arm-smmu driver?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
>>>> <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c | 12 ++++++------
>>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c 
>>>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>>> index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
>>>> @@ -273,18 +273,18 @@ static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct 
>>>> iommu_domain *domain,
>>>>               ctx->secure_init = true;
>>>>           }
>>>> -        /* TTBRs */
>>>> -        iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>>>> -                pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>>>> -                FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>>>> -        iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
>>>> -
>>>>           /* TCR */
>>>>           iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
>>>>                   arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
>>>>           iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
>>>>                    arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
>>>> +        /* TTBRs */
>>>> +        iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
>>>> +                pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
>>>> +                FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
>>>> +        iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
>>>
>>> I'd have thought that SCTLR.M would be clear here, so it shouldn't 
>>> matter
>>> what order we write these in.
>>
>> Having tested the series without this particular patch on 8976 (Sony
>> Loire Suzu), it doesn't seem to matter indeed.  I'll ask around if this
>> "access behaviour" was observed on a different board/platform.
>>
>> - Marijn
> 
> On some platforms, the bootloader (and/or the hypervisor) is performing 
> some
> initialization of the IOMMU which, depending on the actual firmware version
> that ran before booting Linux, may or may not leave SCTLR.M cleared.

But does it actually matter even then? If we're only allowed to program 
the same ASID that was in use beforehand, then logically we can't be 
changing TCR2.AS in a way that makes any difference anyway.

I see no point in pretending to worry about theoretical architectural 
correctness in a driver tied to specific implementations that already 
violate the given architecture in many other ways. If there's a known 
firmware implementation that definitely requires this, that should be 
called out; otherwise, there doesn't seem much justification for the 
patch at all.

Thanks,
Robin.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
index 1728d4d7fe25..75f353866c40 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/qcom_iommu.c
@@ -273,18 +273,18 @@  static int qcom_iommu_init_domain(struct iommu_domain *domain,
 			ctx->secure_init = true;
 		}
 
-		/* TTBRs */
-		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
-				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
-				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
-		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
-
 		/* TCR */
 		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR2,
 				arm_smmu_lpae_tcr2(&pgtbl_cfg));
 		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TCR,
 			     arm_smmu_lpae_tcr(&pgtbl_cfg) | ARM_SMMU_TCR_EAE);
 
+		/* TTBRs */
+		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR0,
+				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.ttbr |
+				FIELD_PREP(ARM_SMMU_TTBRn_ASID, ctx->asid));
+		iommu_writeq(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_TTBR1, 0);
+
 		/* MAIRs (stage-1 only) */
 		iommu_writel(ctx, ARM_SMMU_CB_S1_MAIR0,
 				pgtbl_cfg.arm_lpae_s1_cfg.mair);